"Last Thursday, in plain language, the IRA formally ordered 'an end to the armed campaign' ... If the IRA shows that it means exactly what it has now said, the other leading players in Northern Ireland's affairs must step up to their own responsibilities ... Loyalist paramilitary groups from the Protestant community must follow the IRA's example and permanently renounce all armed activity ...

"[The] Democratic Unionists, now the majority party among Protestant voters, must take the IRA's yes for an answer and agree to form a power-sharing executive cabinet with ... Sinn Féin, now the majority party among Roman Catholics.

"None of these steps will come easily or without constant efforts by London and Dublin ... A genuine end to such an ancient, violent feud would be a sign of hope in a world that desperately needs to believe that there is a path out of terrorism."

Sunday People Editorial, July 31

"The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. [The IRA] can no longer be associated with criminality. Despite claiming to be on ceasefire, everyone knew the IRA was up to its neck in criminal acts: bank robberies, extortion, fuel laundering and even murder. The IRA leadership has told its members to stand back from all activities and pursue its goals by purely political means. For an organisation so wedded to criminality it may be tough. Time will tell if they can do it."

Tim Hames Times, August 1

"The IRA will almost certainly deliver on its word ... because the relationship between Sinn Féin and the IRA has changed fundamentally. Sinn Féin was once the political wing of the IRA; in the course of the past decade, the IRA has become the paramilitary branch of Sinn Féin ...

"Every deal [Sinn Féin] strikes with Tony Blair legitimises the British presence in Northern Ireland. Every concession it secures that advances the economic and social standing of ordinary Roman Catholics in Ulster weakens the argument that it is only through Irish unification that those material interests can be realised."

Bruce Anderson Independent, August 1

"It is much too early to tell whether Thursday's statement from the IRA was a historic transition or a tactical ploy ... There are good reasons to doubt the IRA's good faith. First, the language is ambiguous. It refers to dumping arms, not destroying all weapons. It talks about 'an end to the armed campaign'. There is no commitment to disbanding the IRA.

"Second, we have been here before. On Thursday, the IRA was offering nothing new. Indeed, the undertakings fell short of those required by the Good Friday agreement. In effect the Provos were trying to sell the same horse for the third or fourth time, which makes one doubt whether Mr Blair was wise to reach so eagerly for his chequebook."

Jenny McCartney Sunday Telegraph, July 31

"One thing has indeed changed the IRA's circumstances greatly since 2001 ... the emergence of al-Qaida as a terrorist franchise of exceptional virulence ... It is now unlikely that the IRA could return to its former hobby of 'spectacular' explosions on the British mainland or elsewhere without seriously damaging political support for Sinn Féin. What the IRA can do - and will do, if permitted - is to continue with an unowned, localised campaign of criminality, financial fraud and intimidation while voraciously pursuing its political ambitions in both the North and the South of Ireland.

"Last week's events acted as a depressing reminder - in the midst of Mr Blair's muscular condemnations of al-Qaida - of the degree to which the IRA 's terror campaign has worked. As a pre-arranged pay-off for the IRA's statement, the British government began tearing down watchtowers in South Armagh, and released the IRA bomber Sean Kelly from jail."

Padraig O'Malley Boston Globe, August 1

"The IRA does not stand for a united Ireland, freedom from British oppression etc. It stands for the triumph of fanaticism ... What is happening in London today is simply a variation on the theme. One team of fanatics (IRA) is calling it quits after a long time at bat; another, more enthusiastic lot (jihadists) is stepping up to the plate."

Geoffrey WheatcroftObserver, July 31

"Mr Blair insists that there is distinction between terrorists with, and those without, rational and achievable aims. [But] it is hard anyway to see any true difference between Gerry Adams and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Mr Adams has spent most of his life as part of an organisation responsible for killing innocent people because he wants to drive British troops out of Ulster. Al-Zarqawi kills innocent people because he wants to drive British and American troops from Iraq - and he has every reason to be encouraged by the government's capitulation to the IRA.

"The grim and very dangerous truth is that the terrorists [Mr Blair] will never negotiate with or give an inch to are Asian by birth or descent and Muslim by religion, whereas the terrorists he propitiates are Catholic, Aryan, white Europeans. [Mr Blair's] distinction between good and bad terrorists is not only dishonest, cowardly and hypocritical, it is racist. "